Boa Constrictor arguments

Quite right--remember, it can't get cold in the winter there anymore. <lol>

My bad, though, here is the real 2100 map:
http://www.treehugger.com/20090206-6...level-rise.jpg

Still, they DID show pythons inhabiting aquatic environments in 2100 on their range map, which is highly ridiculous. If they're not going to take projected sea level rise into account, they're obviously not paying much attention to the actual effect global warming will have on the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Well, there are a lot of people who hate for Global Warming to be real, because it means they have to change they way they do business. Behind every voice speaking out against it, there's a carbon-producing business.

It's also easy for people to be confused when they aren't seeing warmer weather all the time. They believe this means the earth isn't warming.

The ice caps are where the story is located. They are shrinking. They're shrinking BIG TIME, and dumping COLD water as they melt--that cold water is what's leading to cooler weather in some areas. You can't look out the window and judge global warming based on your local weather.

Glaciers? Disappearing. Ice caps? Disappearing. There's a reason polar bears are faring so poorly. They rely on sea ice to hunt. The sea ice is forming late, and melting earlier and earlier.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/images/qthinice1.jpg
This is irrefutable. It is happening, and it's a snowball effect, pardon the pun. White reflects light. Once the ice is gone, less light is reflected, it's absorbed, and it heats things up faster.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...023esuice.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0216131158.htm

Did humans do it? Not entirely--we just sped it up. We can slow it down a smidgen by laying off the carbon dioxide production, but we CANNOT stop it. All we can do is buy time to figure out how to move our coastal cities. Or take after Venice. The warming cycle is simply due to begin. It's also due to end, and we have a pretty good idea of what will end it. It just won't be very pretty. Its name is Yellowstone Caldera.

The earth's been through ALL of this before. It's just that time again. We see it coming, but people are dithering so much because the real truth is really hard to take--we can't do anything about it. The real problem is going to arise when the breadbasket of the US succumbs to repeated drought and desertification begins. There certainly won't be any boas living there then.

Using climate change as an excuse to call pythons injurious wildlife is not only absurd because it's unproven, but because climate change will make the areas uninhabitable for them again eventually anyhow, even if it does happen.

---

This is exactly what I think as well. Global warming is part of the natural climate change of the earth. Cooler climates can be a result of the global warming because of the ice caps creating a colder winter for us.

Most boas don't like the everglades very much, because they don't like higher humidity like the Burmese do. Anacondas on the other hand, would like that climate, and they are boas.

People denying climate change are denying science and natural world change. What people need to deny is what the politicians think is the cause of it. Sure our pollution didn't help, but it was not the SOLE reason this is happening.
The pythons won't survive north of the Okeechobee lake. Especially if winters start to get colder and colder from the climate change.

Well, the Everglades are going to be under water, and they don't much like the ocean, so in 2100 there won't really be a problem with Burms in the Everglades any longer. Or anacondas or boas.
Sad, but true.

Heh heh,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Well, the Everglades are going to be under water, and they don't much like the ocean, so in 2100 there won't really be a problem with Burms in the Everglades any longer. Or anacondas or boas.
Sad, but true.

---

I wouldn't bet on it. :twisted:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=171720

The ice in the antarctic has stayed relatively stable (it sits on land ) and most of the decline in the arctic has been in floating ice rather than land based.

And another little white lie with the figures;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descrip...n_IPCC_reports

http://biocab.org/global_warming.html

Isn't science fun. :P


dr del

lol its so "awsome" how people have to get every little detail right about a situation before they act on it, and whats even a greater joke is that people have to be able to agree on every one of those facts before they do something about them. I swear, science these days is just as separated and diverse as christianity.

Desclaimer . I'm not bashing anyones views on science or religion (as some here like to do). All I am saying is people will never agree on every aspect of everything, even if they share a very similair thought, like global warming and the details with it.

Well, the climate change has caused increased snowfall in antarctica. It's the North polar cap that's shrinking alarmingly. However, the snowfall in antarctica is not quite enough to prevent it from shrinking too, so I'm afraid that's wrong...not to mention a bit irrelevent, since the other pole is shrinking so fast. Once it's gone, then what?

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003293.html

They did think it was actually growing for a while, but the satellite data shows otherwise. It's not shrinking very fast, but it is losing mass. Which means all that water is still raising sea levels. But we knew that. Sea levels have risen 8 to 12 inches in the last century.
And the sea has swallowed its first country.
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.ph...s/2001/update2
Tuvalu is no more.

The tone of many reports on global warming has gone from histrionic to reassuring lately. I personally don't find that reassuring. <lol>
The scope of the up and coming disasters is so enormous, I don't think anyone can clearly imagine it all right now. The melting ice, rising ocean, and ocean acidification are a disaster likely to cause far more serious mass extinctions than the proliferation of humans has. The end of nearly all species of shellfish is expected within the next century, and we'll live to see the stocks drop to levels where harvest isn't possible any longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

The fact that all of this is part of a natural cycle, and we've already done our part to aggravate it, doesn't matter. It's still a massive disaster, and the real truth is that it's too late for us to do anything to stop it.

If folks REALLY want to save the Everglades ecosystem, they are going to have to build an ark. They will need to take every species they can find into captivity and set them all up somewhere on high ground. Perhaps after sea levels stabilize, a new swampland will form and it can be re-seeded with the original Everglades inhabitants. It seems unlikely they will ALL survive the inundation and be able to move North, so this process would really be the only way to keep what's left. I find it unlikely that humans will move to make room for a new swamp, though.

This is all a lot of effort to save a very doomed ecosystem. I sometimes wonder if people ever take those things into consideration when they choose what to save. Take Yellowstone, for example--we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's going to eventually explode, vaporizing every last living thing for miles around the park--so all this work is just for some short term enjoyment, isn't it?

I think the alligator is one tough customer, and will easily make room for itself further inland, but some of the smaller species won't fare so well. Perhaps the reptile hobby should focus more on Everglades species--there may come a day when what's in our racks is all that's left of many of them.

The Burmese python is of laughable concern in the face of all this. It's a distraction--a gigantic example of serious denial on the parts of the government and citizens alike. Maybe if they ignore the real problem, it will go away?

Did nobody even read the links I posted? Is there no alarm that e-mails surfaced that the scientists behind a lot of the global warming studies manipulated numbers to make them look better? I can't find it right now but I also read an article where many believed the earth was COOLING back in the 1970's.

And Tuvalu is nearly under water. Some things just can't be argued anymore, lol.

I think we can all agree that even though some snake species can become established in the everglades, their impact is pretty minimal.

There's a difference between a non-native becoming established and a non-native ruining an ecosystem.

Here's an article regarding polar bears that you might find interesting. It's a few years old but I doubt that much has changed in a few years. I'm not saying global warming doesn't exist. However, I'm skeptical due to 1) the fact that data was manipulated and 2) there is evidence of just the opposite, that the earth is cooling, not warming. I think we need to use common sense approaches. I don't think cap & trade is the answer but I won't argue with conservation such as making cars more fuel efficient and finding alternative energy sources. Those make sense for more reasons than just the environment alone. They are win-win solutions. Here's the article link:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba551/